An insult to small-business owners

We have friends and neighbors who work for Cargill, and we are Lansing residents and business owners — so of course we want Cargill to remain in the area, and appreciate its role in the community as a large employer and supporter of the schools, community events, etc.

And if Cargill deems it necessary to improve infrastructure to reduce the risk of accidents, I can’t think of anyone who would not support that.

But the idea that Cargill needs tax abatements to do so, and to keep 200 jobs here, is insulting to small-business owners in the area — and besides, we have seen abatements fail repeatedly, time and again. If 20 small, local businesses, who employ 10 people each, collectively asked for the same tax abatement to upgrade infrastructure, would the answer be the same? No, even though small businesses would benefit from tax relief more than Cargill would — and most small businesses would be much more likely to remain in the area because their owners actually live here.

We waited years to make needed infrastructure upgrades to our business, out of cash flow — the old-fashioned way — even though the timing comes when we are about to put three kids through college. And if we had to make improvements for the safety of our employees, we would do that, too — but we wouldn’t expect local government to waive our taxes for doing so.

I am not opposed to government, and I’m not opposed to helping people who need help — one of the most rewarding aspects of owning a business is being able to offer money, donations and support to community efforts or to those in need. Many businesses (including Cargill) do this; we should not expect anything in return. Giving is fundamental.

Cargill is often named as the largest privately held corporation in the U.S. The bottom line is that it can probably afford to make upgrades, improvements and investments in its own systems and infrastructure without help from local government.

We don’t want businesses to leave the area, but businesses should not capitalize on that fear by crying poor —especially not an enormous corporation such as Cargill. It is manipulative for a large corporation to leverage its size in this way.

“Smaller government” is a popular rallying cry, until people or corporations want something from the government — in which case, that cry goes quiet, and suddenly the largesse of government is most welcome.

Our local government should understand the message it is sending to local businesses when it “abates” the taxes of large businesses. It’s propping up a large corporation who doesn't need the help, and at the same time, it’s implying that small businesses don't contribute enough to the local economy to justify abatements.

A healthy economy includes all sizes of businesses — not a kingdom of a few large, wealthy employers whom the local government further enriches out of cowardice or favoritism.